Barack Obama, college professor

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Exactly! When it was safe, you didn't have to be tough to live out West anymore either, so aliens from New York started populating Hollywood and the rest is history.

We're discovering that the cool, calm detached air of the Professor is nothing more than the high sheen of academic incompetence when to comes to the real world...

__________________
"The more he talked, the more he got upset. He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Please, No More Teachable Moments

Obama should be building bridges, not aggravating local controversies.

The president of the United States has it hard enough without needlessly wading into, and fanning, local controversies. The economy is battered by sluggish growth, high unemployment, record annual deficits, and near-unsustainable national debt. Over 50 percent of the people now disapprove of Barack Obama’s handling of these problems.

So why weigh in on hot-button issues that can only polarize people without solving anything?

Last summer, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, a scholar of African-American literature and history, got into a silly dispute with a local policeman. For some reason, President Obama, the leader of the free world, rushed to judgment and gratuitously announced that police sergeant James Crowley and the local Cambridge, Mass., police had acted “stupidly.” For relish, he added that police wrongly stereotype in general. Obama supporters wrote off the entire psycho-drama as a “teachable moment.”

Arizona recently passed a bill designed to enforce existing immigration law and stop the enormous influx of illegal aliens into the state. Various groups, including the federal government, quickly made plans to sue the state. Yet various polls indicated that 70 percent of Americans agreed with the Arizona law, and dozens of states were planning similar legislation.

Nonetheless, the president also jumped into that acrimony — well before the law went into effect. Obama and his attorney general alleged that Arizonans were promoting stereotyping, even though police were forbidden to question the immigration status of those who had not come into prior contact with law enforcement.

Most recently, Obama pontificated about the proposed mosque next to Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, in what his supporters might call a “teachable moment.” The issue is not a legal one. Both sides recognize the legal right of Muslims to build mosques anywhere that local zoning ordinances permit them. Instead, the controversy pertains to common decency, and the nature of the funding and proponents of the project.

No matter: The president instead lectured his mostly Muslim audience that America respects the rights of all religions — again, not the issue in question. A day later, in embarrassment, he backtracked a bit.

Where to start with all these teachable moments?

All these controversies involve issues addressed at the state and local level, with presidential action unnecessary. In such contentious matters, why intervene when Obama cannot do much other than polarize millions?

We have learned that President Obama has a bad habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. In the Gates case, he rushed to condemn Crowley and the police. Arizonans were not to be seen as desperate citizens trying to enforce federal law, but instead derided as bigots who harass minorities when they go out to get ice cream. And in the mosque case, the president disingenuously implied that opponents of a Ground Zero mosque wanted to deny the legal right of Muslims to build religious centers.

Note that all three issues poll badly for the president, and belie his former image as a conciliator and healer.

Again, why does Obama go off message to sermonize about these seemingly minor things that so energize his opposition and make life difficult for his fellow Democrats?

First, off-the-cuff pontificating on extraneous issues is a lot easier than dealing with a bad economy, two wars, and heightening tensions abroad. Sermonizing is a lot different than rounding up votes in Congress, fending off reporters at press conferences, or dealing with aggressors abroad — and it can also turn our attention away from near 10 percent unemployment and a heavily indebted government.

Second, Obama has spent most of his life around academics, lawyers, journalists, and organizers. That insular culture tends to pontificate and lecture others far more than do action-oriented business people, soldiers, doctors and farmers — the doers who are few and far between in this administration.

Third, as an Ivy League–trained lawyer and former Chicago community organizer, Obama embraces an overarching race/class/gender critique of the United States; the story of America is not so much about an exceptionally independent and prosperous people, a unique Constitution or a vibrant national past in promoting global freedom, but about how the majority oppressed various groups. Clearly, these local instances of purported grievances have excited the president — and almost automatically prompt his customary but unproven declarations that the majority or establishment in each case is biased or unfair.

Obama should remember that successful presidents build bridges to solve national and international problems. They leave polarizing local controversies to divisive community organizers and partisan activists.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution and Stanford University
NRO

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oh, I'm just sittin' on the dock bay...





http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=410979




We're ALL BIGOTS!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's because he's closer to them than he is to us.





He might have been born in Hawaii, but he's still the first truly non-American President...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Obamanation...





I KNOW!!!



Let's OPEN the borders and declare not just amnesty, but a sanctuary NATION!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Get their "free" and requisite education....

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Barack Obama: A Management Appraisal
Frank Burke

Management Style

In classic management theory, Barack Obama would have to be described as an abdicative manager.

The abdicative manager evidences a tendency to flee from responsibility and is frequently encountered in situations where he or she never wanted the job in the first place (for instance, a son or daughter who inherits a company) or the individual who discovers that they are incapable of adequate performance. Abdication can be exhibited in a variety of ways, ranging from physically removing oneself through travel (the confusion of movement with action), to obsessing about personal interests or a limited range of controllable subjects.

Obama's frequent vacations and absences, especially in times of crisis, coupled with his unwillingness to personally invest himself in key initiatives, are demonstrative of this style. An excellent example occurred after passage of the healthcare initiative. Having ceded authority in what would later be described as his key achievement to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he watched as they forced the bill through under a manufactured emergency that precluded lawmakers from having time to read it. He then went on a four-day vacation before signing it.

Team Building and Leadership

If a large organization is to function effectively, it is essential that the management team be composed of individuals who are experienced, capable, and able to function together smoothly in pursuit of stated objectives. To build the team, the top executive names a primary staff or inner circle to select other team members. The confident executive will not hesitate to recruit individuals whose ideas may deviate from his own, as long as they are competent and willing to work with other team members. Having access to multiple, even conflicting, points of view is essential to obtaining a realistic vision of events.

The Obama administration has been singularly ineffective in developing a workable team. The President's inner circle has, for the most part, consisted of Chicago machine politicians. The appointment of numerous Czars, whose functions are neither well-articulated nor understood, has led to confusion on all levels and among the public. The selection mechanism is badly dysfunctional, as illustrated by the choice of self-proclaimed Communist Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar; under-age sex advocate Kevin Jennings as School Safety Czar; and multiple other controversial appointments. Cabinet appointees include Energy Secretary Steven Chu, (like Obama, an advocate of high gas prices); Attorney General Eric Holder, whose advocacy of racial preferences has resulted in serious dissension within the Justice Department; Janet Napolitano, a career politician with no training or experience in security as Secretary of Homeland Security; and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Conflicts between Mrs. Clinton's State Department and the administration, arising over a variety of foreign policy questions, have been painfully obvious.

At a time when the economy is in recession, and unemployment stands at historic highs, it is significant that less than seven percent of Obama's appointees have any private sector experience. The number of administrative officials in high places who have left after two years or less is further evidence of the leadership vacuum.

Strategic Planning

A critical element of executive responsibility, strategic planning sets the mid- to long-term goals of the organization that form the rationale for shorter term and day-to-day activities. In any large business, strategic planning would involve allocation of existing resources, planning the corporate infrastructure, developing timely products and services to assure customer retention and expansion, targeting new opportunities, and phasing out systems no longer efficient or profitable.

Other than placating the far left -- a small and shrinking segment of his "customer" base -- it is difficult to discover any strategic direction in Obama's thinking. Even his so-called singular achievement, ObamaCare, was poorly cobbled together without much direction. On questions including foreign policy, to the war in Afghanistan, trials for terrorists, closing the Guantanamo facility, etc., his actions have been tentative and unpredictable. Energy and environmental policies have clearly damaged not only employment opportunities but the nation's infrastructure in terms of energy independence. Just as he permitted his party to proceed through 2010 without articulating a budget, his continued reluctance to advance any policy with regard to entitlements, leaves the administration - and the country - without a strategy and without a plan.

Crisis Management

The "3:00 a.m. Phone Call" TV commercial, produced by the Clinton campaign, was indeed prescient. That phone has rung numerous times, and it has gone unanswered. The failure to provide even moral encouragement to the demonstrators in Iran, coupled with the more recent waffling on the situations in Egypt and Libya, bespeak a president unsure of his policies and unable to react to events in a timely manner. As the drug wars in Mexico have escalated to critical mass, efforts to strengthen the border have languished. Reactions to real and attempted terrorist attacks on America soil have been met with response that is both tepid and uncertain.

Financial Acumen

Most chief executives spend time with stockholders, analysts, credit sources, and others discussing the financial status of the organization. Where there are problems, the CEO is expected to present a rational turnaround plan detailing the steps to be taken to ensure financial survival.

At a time when the national debt threatens to destabilize the entire economy, Obama's only suggestion has been to engage in further spending. The lack of a cohesive financial policy has resulted in a global loss of faith in the U.S. dollar, possible economic collapse, and a threat of future inflation. In refusing to consider the recommendations of the Budget Task Force he appointed, it is clear that his grasp of finance and economics is less than rudimentary.

Lacking both the relevant education and experience, were he applying for an executive position in any company, he would in all likelihood be quickly rejected. His refusal to divulge school records and grades would also work against him. If the business to which he applied was involved in any form of sensitive or defense work, his past associations with radicals would result in the denial of any security clearance.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/barack_obama_a_management_appr.html

 

[Saint Peter]

:Kleenex:

 

[MeeMie]

Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor' at the University of Chicago. He never held any such title. In fact, according to the University of Chicago Law School, Obama did not have tenure. His formal title was "Senior Lecturer."


Meet Richard Epstein, who was on faculty at the University of Chicago when Barry was a junior assistant lecturer. His recollections of Obama are not flattering:

Barry is NOT and never was a "law professor". He was handed a fake "assistant adjunct lecturer" job at Chicago Law after receiving his fake affirmative action law degree from Harvard. Barry probably had two or three hours of lecture (that someone else wrote for him) that he was able to deliver as a "guest lecturer" for a sprinkling of courses at Chicago. He was literally in the classroom a few HOURS per semester - just to maintain appearances so he could collect a six-figure salary. And he screwed off the rest of the time. He isn't a scholar. He isn't a professor. He's a fraud.


The smartest genius President is nothing more than a carboard cutout. A fraud. Doesn't exist.


When he was given the title as an instructor at the Chicago University, his colleagues who were actual Professors didn't like him and resented that he achieved the position without merit. Obama's position was obtained through political channels. Other actual Professors at Chicago University corraborate that Obama's "teaching career" was, to put it kindly, a sham.

The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law did not have any nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a Professor and was hardly an adjunct in title only.

The actual professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a paid for political stepping stool. He had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. It is doubful whether Obama was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school. That would make him unique among editors serving.



A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

Obama was never a law professor, as some have claimed.

The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

"He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.





Barack Obama, magically a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he swore to lies on his bar application. There was false information relating to previous drug use, use of an alias name and multiple civil violations. The Illinois Bar has decided to partially redact what little public information it had available on its website related to the President's legal status. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois has gone through some amazing contortions maintaining a single database record for a retired attorney named Barack Obama.



The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The promises are not a notion, as Obama referred to them.

This is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama is only transparent in the sense that his past is invisible.


The guy is a complete phoney fabrication of a loonie wet dream.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Everything he's ever done has been a fraud.





http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=619131

 

[MeeMie]

He's nothing more than a marketing package paid for and developed by foreign interests (read here: George Soros) with intent to weaken the United States and propel it toward a One World Government:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=626137
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=625302
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=630746
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35605039&postcount=22
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35065993&postcount=72
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34492589&postcount=7
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34174436&postcount=91
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=33499873&postcount=24
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=32542084&postcount=142
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31871066&postcount=65




He's an empty suit.

Outlined throughout this thread by an insider within the White House:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=35903899#post35903899



Anyone that still believes in the scam is so politically motivated that they refuse to acknowledge how they've been played.

It irritates me that these same over zealous loonies would sacrifice the ideals that the United States was founded on simply to champion their liberal partisanship, regardless of the facts now known about Obama.

Indeed, it is apparent that those supposedly who vetted him protected his destructive secrets for their own self preservation and promotion.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Professor’s War

America is led by a man determined that it should not lead.

President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor.

True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Qaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi, and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”

But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?

Well, let’s see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.

And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?

● Russia’s Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.

● China is calling for a cease-fire to be put in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Qaddafi in power, his people at his mercy, and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.

● Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.

And how about NATO? Let’s see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Qaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience, and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

Charles Krauthammer
NRO

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Most pundits at NRO yesterday reached the conclusion that it was not unconstitutional.

I have little problem with taking action when warranted.



My problem is his lack of communication to the people, his lack of adequate sales pitch, and the complacent attitude of those who went bananas after Bush repeatedly got UN resolutions, went to Congress twice for permission, and then took the time to clearly articulate his position to the American people. Everyone had a chance to say no. Few did.

But in hindsight, they found a red-herring on which to build a resentment against the man.

I think they need to develop a red argument for this action for none of it makes a lick of sense.

Is Syria next?

Palestine?
They sure have not let up on killing Jews,
But that somehow gets buried in the news...
__________________
A_J's corollary #4, “To the New Age Liberal, Consensus is more important than factual truth.”
A_J, the Stupid

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

He let us know early on with the Georgia conflict where his proclivities lied when it came to war...

Like Madeline and Hillary before, looks like he was duped; by the Arab League of all people.



Proving that they can say anything they want to an infidel in order to get him to spread his forces too thin along the barbarian front so they can take him like Commodus...

Come on, rock me Commodeaus...

 

[miles]

And the incompetent media blathers about the Empty Suit:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who after a 2008 presidential debate hailed Barack Obama’s foreign policy knowledge (“boy, he did show a command of foreign policy in terms of the nuts and bolts of it”), on Sunday’s Meet the Press trumpeted now-President Obama’s Libya action: “This was pretty remarkable – bringing this whole coalition together and getting the Arab League” to back military action.

Mitchell also proclaimed Ambassador Susan Rice “did a remarkable job at the UN” where she delivered “some very adept diplomacy.”

Mitchell’s praise for Obama came in the context of acknowledging “the problem that the President has in projecting American values is that he first of all believes in a multi-lateralist policy,” but instead of seeing that as a negative, she declared “on that score he has really accomplished that. This was pretty remarkable – bringing this whole coalition together and getting the Arab League.”

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/br...arkable-job-done-obama-and-rice#ixzz1Hc0EhCLP

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

And the incompetent media blathers about the Empty Suit:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who after a 2008 presidential debate hailed Barack Obama’s foreign policy knowledge (“boy, he did show a command of foreign policy in terms of the nuts and bolts of it”), on Sunday’s Meet the Press trumpeted now-President Obama’s Libya action: “This was pretty remarkable – bringing this whole coalition together and getting the Arab League” to back military action.

Mitchell also proclaimed Ambassador Susan Rice “did a remarkable job at the UN” where she delivered “some very adept diplomacy.”

Mitchell’s praise for Obama came in the context of acknowledging “the problem that the President has in projecting American values is that he first of all believes in a multi-lateralist policy,” but instead of seeing that as a negative, she declared “on that score he has really accomplished that. This was pretty remarkable – bringing this whole coalition together and getting the Arab League.”

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/br...arkable-job-done-obama-and-rice#ixzz1Hc0EhCLP

With all the objectivity that NPR could muster!

Remember when the ABC honcho said, yeah, ABC is biased to the Left, that's because we're a Left-of-Center nation...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/223237.shtml

Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004 10:31 p.m. EST

ABC News Admits Press Liberal, Hates Bush

It’s rare when the major media admit to their liberal bias.

When CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg revealed that his network – and all the others – were liberal, it came as a shock to his colleagues.

As Goldberg noted, the liberal press had been talking to themselves for so long, they all believed that every other sane person shared their views. Republicans, the NRA and pro-lifers were all wackos.

On Tuesday, ABCNews.com made some confessions of their own – confessions that are as profound as Goldberg’s.

On the ABC site's must-read "The Note" section, prepared by the network's "political unit," was the following, and we quote verbatim:

"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions.'

"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...

"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war – in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.